This faction represents the men who fought against the rebel, they were called reds 'rojos' because thc communist party take control of many part of the governement together with socialists and with the support of the soviets create the Popular Army.

There are several subfactions in this faction: Anarchists, International Brigades and Vasques.

Apart from subfactions they have two types of combat troops, the regular army and the Militias.

The Republican territory has two zones, the north of Spain (Asturies, Santander and the Basque country) and Catalonia, the Levante, Murcia, Malaga, Jaen, Badajoz, Madrid and Castilla la Nueva(Toledo, Cuenca etc...)

Initially the Republicans troops are 99% militia, they have some artillery and two arm car units. They have to capture as many cities as they can in the north until the Nationalist get stronger. In Andalussia they are facing Africa troops so they cant do nothing but defend.
Regarding the leaders initially there are just a few of them, the republican player has to use them wisely, there are many options to choose.

In September/October the Popular Army must be created, this give the Republic several things: The transformation of the militias into regular battalions.
,the arrival of the Mixed Brigades units and the possibility of buying regular infantry battalions.
In December you will get one more level for entrenchement and you could create divisions and more armies.
So its clear the more important option in the game for the Republic.

Schwarzer Herzog wrote:The republican army has not discipline in this early time of war, for example I'd listened General Lister in an old interview that the anarchists columns to Aragon vote the actions to do for the next day, so how do you find this little discipline in the game : cohesion ? leadership of leaders ? force ? a plus or minus for these units ?

Leibstandarte wrote:The lack of leader for the anarchist is enough to make them worst at combat.

TheDoctorKing wrote:Also it is difficult to combine anarchist and regular Republican units. Basically, the Anarchists are a pain in the butt, useful for defending positions but pretty much handicapped on the offensive. They have a couple of leaders and you can form mixed brigades and divisions with them and get a few into the war. the regular republican militia once you can get them trained up to regular status and formed into brigades.

Anarchists were the more disciplined, but their discipline was for work. Their higher discipline was not very useful for actual war, as their cohesion was easily harmed in battles.
Anarchists had been chased by all spanish governments, even socialist one. So they had always been underground and their leaders were often kept in foreign prisons, so anarchist movement miss them for the war.
Yes anarchists dreamed for too long that they did not need any kind of militarization (Makhno experience is missing here*, despite Cipriano Mera), but without them stealing weapons, being first combatants (anarchists even did the first "international brigades", months before the well known commie ones), the fascists would have won without a war (what they had thought at first), and there would not have been this game... (and WW2 would be different, with intact Spain in Hitler camp).
* Surviving Makhno going to Spain: Maybe an interesting what-if, where Makhno might succeed in better organizing anarchists, uniting the commandment of whole republican side, and disminishing Moscow influence.

So we have a possible capitalist/social democratic Spanish Republic, with French aid, and a possible anarchist Spanish Republic, with Makhno commanding a cohesive and organized anarchist force. We probably ought to have some options for the Nationalists as well...

I see these as potential political option choices early on, like the ones Andatiep is experimenting with in RUS. Going to take a lot of work, though.

TheDoctorKing wrote:So we have a possible capitalist/social democratic Spanish Republic, with French aid, and [now] a possible anarchist Spanish Republic, with Makhno commanding a cohesive and organized anarchist force. We probably ought to have some options for the Nationalists as well...

I see these as potential political option choices early on. Going to take a lot of work, though.

Thanks. Makhno met Durruti and Ascaso in 1927, but he died in 1934. If we want to make him survive until 1939, it's an important what-if. Maybe not as huge than Mola without accident (surviving after 1937.., option you searched for Nationalists?).
These two options are not only political...
EDIT: Woop, not Mola, I wanted to write about Sanjurjo, dying too in a plane accident (20/07/36).

I think the biggest what if is in the non intervention ... if Republica can score early succes can win more support from France for example with a more open frontier that means better supplies, weapons and more international brigades apart you dont only depend of soviet aid (cheaper resources from France).

Ironclad61 wrote:... if Republica can score early succes can win more support from France for example with a more open frontier that means better supplies, weapons and more international brigades apart you dont only depend of soviet aid (cheaper resources from France).

I don't think. French Front Populaire feared revolution, what was starting in France. Spanish anarchists hope for a popular help, a succesful french revolution. So, french Front Populaire suddenly gave to frenchies many social and economical advances, all even not in their program and they had said impossible! It was successful: it made the french revolution end, the Left government made the french workers let the economy to bosses and to the State.
So, even at now, the spanish anarchists indirectly made the french Front Populaire still popular for french workers..
French Front Populaire won't make a spanish revolution sucessful, which could (re)start one in France. At best, French government would make like Russia: an help if it let the spanish revolution die.

ERISS wrote:I don't think. French Front Populaire feared revolution, what was starting in France. Spanish anarchists hope for a popular help, a succesful fench revolution. So, french Front Populaire suddenly gave to frenches many social and economical advances, all even not in their program and they had said impossible! It was successful: it made the french revolution end, the Left government made the french workers let the economy to bosses and to the State.So, even at now, the spanish anarchists indirectly made the french Front Populaire still popular for french workers..French Front Populaire won't make a spanish revolution sucessful, which could (re)start one in France. At best, French government would make like Russia: an help if it let the spanish revolution die.

Only it's not a spanish revolution. It's a spanish popular front defending itself against reactionary forces. Assuming the republicans achieve a number of early victories, one can equally assume that the republicans will not radicalise as much and therefore retain closer ties to their french counterparts.

At first centered on anarchists. The spanish Front Popular, their very leaders together, went make alliegeance to the CNT, letting the CNT decide on their future (CNT stole weapons, and almost all army was in fascist hand at the very beggining). The front popular recognized it was the anarchists which saved the republic from the fascist coup (it was the 3rd time, in fact, that anarchist people saved the spanish republic, even the republic killed the anarchists or put them in jail).
But anarchist population was too cool (hoping for international bourgeois help, they voted against many anarchist leaders): they let the government survive.
The spanish popular front only defended after that anarchists everywhere (not only in Barcelona where there was a CNT label and leaders) saved them first, and ok for the future of the war it is afterward not against what you said.

ERISS wrote: anarchist population was too cool (hoping for international bourgeois help, they voted against many anarchist leaders): they let the government survive.

But, so, the government did govern, people didn't understand that the government, they had kindly let survive, could send orders to them. The government dared to govern. People felt some betrayed for they belived the CNT wouldn't let this to happen.
But CNT leaders honesty and care, keeping their word (or rather the population word) on the goverment, let the government do. They made themselves unintendly traitors, and entering the government to hope to control what they could, being some kind of bolsheviks (government with anarchist speaking)...

Schwarzer Herzog wrote:[ moved from Nationalists thread ]the anarchists columns to Aragon vote the actions to do for the next day,

Yes, but the strategy was already agreed by the combattants following the Durruti speach: To hurry the more to free Zaragoza.
The military wanted the column to slow, to keep discipline, they wanted to sacrifice the good strategy to their discipline.
And finally the CNT head, following Madrid politic, froze surreptitiously the anarchists for one year to the feet of Zaragoza. I'll say anarchists had too much discipline as they stand there, obeying Madrid orders.
So, discipline can be very bad.

Another very important "what if" is what might have happened had the anti-fascist forces been able to fight a revolutionary war for much longer than the first year or so of the conflict. Both the anarchist CNT and the socialist POUM had been enthusiastic supporters of the social revolution that had broken out in Spain after the war began e.g. land collectivisation and workers' control in the factories. For these groups and their supporters the struggle to build a better society was an integral part of the war against Franco.

However, to have sustained the revolutionary war, a number of other things needed to happen. First of all, the CNT and POUM did not address the question of state power and left the Republican government intact. This gave it the opportunity to crush the social revolution and it was aided enthusiastically by the Stalinists (Russians) in this task. Secondly, if independence had been formally granted to Spanish Morocco then uprisings would have occurred in Franco's rear and his African army would have disintegrated. Thirdly, the anti-fascist forces could have used guerrilla warfare against the fascists to very great effect in Spain as the terrain was very suitable for it (e.g. these tactics had been used against Napoleon in the 19thC).

But none of these things happened and eventually some CNT leaders joined the Republican government and the gains of the social revolution (1936/7) were quickly reversed. In particular, Stalin definitely did not want a revolutionary transformation in Spain (the Stalinists assassinated Nin, the POUM leader). Above all else he was determined to show Britain and France that he could be a reliable alliance partner against a resurgent fascist Germany.

So there's a big job there for someone. Maybe a "revolutionary mod" or suchlike? It's no good asking me though, I have no idea how to do modding.

Durk wrote:Actually, if you can restate you ideas of the war in game terms, your ideas might me available for modding.For instance, explain how these potential forces impact units, leaders, income and tactics?

I think you would need someone with a great deal of very detailed knowledge of the civil war, both in its political and military aspects, to attempt this project. That person is not me, I'm afraid, and I don't have the time to do all the necessary research to get me up to speed.

To give a more detailed sense of what I was suggesting though, there is an article here from Felix Morrow, a Trotskyist, written in October 1936, in which he draws a clear distinction between the approach of the Popular front government in Madrid and the revolutionary movement in Catalonia . . .

I am aware that there is some historical controversy about the claim that if the Spanish Republic had granted independence to Morocco then Franco's insurrection would have foundered, but I have not read anything recently on that subject.

Funny how the trotskits advocate what they destroyed when they had power, acting like, and even worst than the Madrid governement.Do as we tell, not like we did. Anarchists, Durruti, in Spain: Yes! Makhnovists in Ukraine: No.

You may ask for being included in the beta forum, where there is some material, but I don't think the game will be continued. Or maybe a small patch in a far future.

ERISS wrote:Funny how the trotskits advocate what they destroyed when they had power, acting like, and even worst than the Madrid governement.Do as we tell, not like we did. Anarchists, Durruti, in Spain: Yes! Makhnovists in Ukraine: No.

You may ask for being included in the beta forum, where there is some material, but I don't think the game will be continued. Or maybe a small patch in a far future.

Where to start with you, ERISS? There were no Trotskyists in Russia (1917-21) while the civil war was underway. You can only really begin to identify the emergence of a Trotskyist tendency as an opposition to Stalinist counter-revolution in the years after 1924. And the anarchists in Spain were far more rooted in the working class movement than the Makhnovists were in the Ukraine, hence the different attitude towards them by those of a Marxist persuasion.

Many of what we call anarchists in Spain during the civil war where a rarefied version, syndicalists. This was a collective, localize commune. Very different than our idea of anarchists as bomb throwers. Very worthwhile understanding the differences stockwellpete explains.

Exactly like in Ukraine. They were workers. For bolsheviks the farm work does not count, it's for the lazy and the kulaks.

Very different than our idea of anarchists as bomb throwers.

Without violent anarchists, Spain would be doomed since day one of the nationalist revolt.However I'm okay that purely individual violence is doomed to failure too, it's only about vengeance and fighting honor.

Well, kind of exactly like in the Ukraine, except in Barcelona it was an industrial model, not a rural model.

There do seem to be two sorts of anarchists. The one I know best prefer collective non-violent actions. While syndicalism did have proponents in Russia, in Russia direct action was much more important as opposed to passive refusal.

Durk wrote:Well, kind of exactly like in the Ukraine, except in Barcelona it was an industrial model, not a rural model.

Barcelona was only a town. The remaining country was mainly rural.Or you mean about Spain AFTER the victory of Franco, so much that many retirados coming back to Spain didn't recognize it! Spain had so changed that finally it was no longer their country, they prefered to go back to exile.

Durk wrote:Kind of funny. I hope you meant to be funny by calling Barcelona merely a town.

My english is not enough good. I wanted to say that Spain was a rural country. Sure there were more factories in Spain36 than Ukraine18, but people was mainly paesants, even they were not 80% like in RCW.

I get your point, but still - there are/were differences in what syndicalism meant.

Sure, that's what lost the spanish anarchists, as the CNT did became a kind of bolshevism, for a State capitalism hidden behind syndicalism, the syndicat becoming the new State with its enslaved workers. So the CNT head was not really against a republic, bolshevik one or usual bourgeois.

I think your English is very good and you explain clearly. My comment about being funny is that 100,000 Anarcho-Syndicalists militias were raised in Barcelona alone. It was a major industrial site. Indeed much of the Anarchist soldiers came from the peasant population of Spain, but this was not the Syndicalist movement in Spain. Theirs was an industrialist base group.I do think this game is very solid in representing both our views.